A shoddy way to decide the future of the whale nation

The jamboree is back in town. IWC delegates are settling into the comforts of the conference suites, as they gather today in St. Helier, Jersey, ready for another week of false furore over the future of the whale. False, because the International Whaling Commission (IWC) really does appear to work in a parallel universe, divorced what most of us would consider to be the real issues around whale conservation.

Just consider the doublespeak of the language used. The IWC aims to conserve 'whale stocks', not simply 'whales' implying the value of a whale being seen purely from an economic point of view. Wholesale slaughter of sentient, intelligent and social beings, is termed 'scientific whaling'.

And 'subsistence indigenous whaling,' which conjures up images of heroic and sympathetic struggles between man and beast, to put food on the plate, contrasts with the spectacle of bloodied seas and pink foam, at the annual Faeroe Islands pilot whale hunt.

The spectacle of the IWC itself over the few decades is no less edifying, if a little less brutal. As a voluntary international body, open to all-comers, it has swung from wildly from one side to the other on the 'kill vs save' debate. It was when the plight of the whale first made its mark on public consciousness, back in the 1970s, that the cozy whalers club was changed dramatically.

Many non-whaling countries joined, and the anti-whaling lobby successfully 'stacked' the IWC with the votes needed for a moratorium on whaling. But since that 1986 halt, the pro-whaling nations, led by Japan have evened out the balance; and money has since flowed on both sides of the debate.

The IWC has become hopelessly deadlocked, split 50:50 as smaller nations were pressured, or induced, to back one side or the other. A dark game of chess has been played out for the last two decades, with accusations of foot-dragging, vote-buying and dirty tricks flying thick and fast.

Meanwhile, those who wanted to carry of the hunting, such as Iceland and Norway, have simply done so - either with the fig-leaf of 'scientific whaling', or without it. This year's IWC meeting is supposed to be a 'wound-licking' affair, after the tumult of last years meeting, when the pro-whaling lobby pressed hard for an ending to the moratorium. There are some hopes for some small reforms to the body, to try and clean up its behavior.

But the question remains, is the IWC really fit-for-purpose? Is it up to the job of deciding the fate of intelligent creatures, whose affinity to us is shown to be stronger, with every scientific study? What this body has failed to say, boldly and clearly, is that whaling is abhorrent to the majority of peoples in the global village.

We have learned to love whales and dolphins and despise those who slaughter them for commercial gain. After nearly three decades of dodging the issue, it appears the IWC is unable to grasp this thistle, at the heart of the matter.

So it is not the technical language of the IWC, 'sufficiently sustainable stock' or 'quotas for harvesting' that needs to be heard. The real issue is that, in the global commons of the high seas, world opinion is firmly against whaling on moral grounds. That opinion should be reflected in a proper legal framework, through an international treaty, under UN auspices. A treaty with real teeth.

That's the very least that the gentle (or fierce) giants of the sea deserve from us, who have pushed them, within living memory, to the brink of extinction. And certainly not the shoddy and grubby maneuverings of the back-room boys at the IWC.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

Sponsors

Recent News

You can deny climate change as much as you like. The evidence contradicts you. Any logical study takes account of scientific data which can be reproduced. That is the difference between media reports and the global warming reality. Here we have an up-to-date report on the state of one nation, with many others also recognising and acting on how to combat climate change in a coordinated global response.

IUCN must be listened to, unless you are one of those who disregards any science on the grounds that it could be fake. Acting is the opposite to disinterest, but what can we do to counter the actions of great industries or the governments of large populations of people? The answer seems bland, but it proves individuals are always important.

From Myanmar, through the Congo to the Atlantic forests of Brazil, we are neglecting our rainforests, but temperate forests are also suffering, often from pest influences as global warming really takes hold in certain regions. How to help prevent a treeless future - as always, take these pieces of well-informed, well-rounded and interesting advice.

Sponsored Links

Recent Blog Posts

The future is certainly renewable, but are we too late to prevent future centuries problems of global warming- and the rest! Here are some current US solutions to waste and warming for you to enjoy---there are some ads in this piece but weve allowed them for one blog only.

When dolphins are 'rescued' in various countries, the car given seems to be ill-considered. We are simply looking at the success rate which is reported to be low, in most places. They could even end up in commercial aquarium shows, but they certainly rarely make it back to the sea.